Find a Lawyer

SALEEM HAJI REHMATULLAH DADA, KARACHI versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANIES-V, KARACHI

Further refunds on payment of loan, Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 2 (20) (e), 96 (2), 99, 100, 156 (4) and 136 (1) Appellant Loan Claims The ordinance was deemed to have been a dividend under section 2 (20) (e) of the Appellate Authority, and the increase has been confirmed, but the Tribunal re-examined the appellant in the 1998 review process. Assessment along the direction of which the loan taken by him was repaid. The assessment year 1986 assessment 87 was reviewed during the year 1987 88 The Assessing Officer rejected such request and thereafter made a written request for refund under Section 96 (2) of the Ordinance Assessing Officer. Request for Amendment of Evaluation Order related to assessment year. 1987 88, and the assumption made under section 156 of the Ordinance Tribunal, rejecting a similar request, was made available to the appellant for the reason for the finalization of the assessment assessment. Through the year 1986 87, 31 3 1998 through date, the present case was not rectified as the assessment year 1987 88 was completed on the basis of facts and circumstances found in 30 8 1988 as the question of correction arose. Didn't happen because there was no mistake. Existing claims for refund were not overcome by the provisions of Sections 99 and 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, therefore, the limitation period provided was not relevant under section 2 (20) (e). Was entitled to an additional refund. ) The High Court answers the question in a positive and accepted appeal by way of relief as a result of the ordinance. registration advocate from Jampur lawyer